Check out Modern Chess, our featured variant for January, 2025.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

EarliestEarlier Reverse Order LaterLatest
The birth of two variants: Apothecary chess 1 & Apothecary chess 2[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
V. Reinhart wrote on Mon, Feb 27, 2017 04:30 PM UTC:
How big is the board? You mention rank 10, so I assume it's 10x10?
You have a lot of new pieces, some fairly powerful such as griffin, aanca, chancellor, and archbishop. But it's hard for me to envision without seeing the board set-up.
How long did the game(s) last? If you have a joker (or fool) I think a slow game might be more fun, because it lets the players put more thought on when to move and not move the joker. But if the game progresses too fast, the joker may not have had time to be used strategically. That's just my theory, but of course I don't have an engine that can play this game. It's impressive that Greg is programming chessV as fast as you are inventing new games.
Btw, (Greg), I think you are right that a position is not repeated if the joker has a different move. The repetition rule should only be applied as a last resort. If the game has changed status in any way, the players should be left to battle it out.
 

Aurelian Florea wrote on Mon, Feb 27, 2017 04:46 PM UTC:

@Vickalan,

Yes the board is 10 by 10. I forgot to mention. I Apologize for that! Actually I'm doing most (75%) of the programming for Apothecary, Greg was happy to allow me to use the open source code. In a few weeks, once I solve everything, the code will be available for everybody maybe you can help beta test Vickalan and then release the Chess Variants article! I'll soon post some pictures with some initial positions for reference (as there are 48 accepted initial positions).


Aurelian Florea wrote on Mon, Feb 27, 2017 05:18 PM UTC:


Aurelian Florea wrote on Mon, Feb 27, 2017 05:19 PM UTC:


Aurelian Florea wrote on Mon, Feb 27, 2017 05:20 PM UTC:

My previous two posts were positions 15 in Apothecary1 Chess and Apothecary2 Chess! They are taken from chessV's interface!


George Duke wrote on Mon, Feb 27, 2017 08:46 PM UTC:

The style of commenting here is practically worthless to a hundred casual readers who don't know what Joker or Jester is.  The terms need to be put into context over again each time it is brought up or only a few readers get the point.  I understand the advertising of this piece and the CVs using it because of knowing so many CVs.  Here is contribution to the topic even though this thread is confusing: the Spy from 1937.  The Joker or Jester or Fool being talked about moves like the last piece opponent moved.  The Spy, http://www.chessvariants.com/wargame.dir/novo/novo.html, from Holland pre-World War II also moves like the enemy piece, but Spy moves like the piece it sits on.  Spy has to sit on another piece in fact, friend or foe.  There is a family of Chameleon-like piece-types not just Fool etc. (Of course use of Fool is also Bishop in France.)


V. Reinhart wrote on Mon, Feb 27, 2017 10:45 PM UTC:
Hi Aurelian,
I didn't know that you also program code for playing chess (or at least adding code to play new variants). That's pretty cool.
 
It looks like a good starting setup for Apothecary games. I like how the king and queen are in mirror symmetry (same as normal chess) but other sections have rotational symmetry (white's empty squares on h and i, and black's on b and c). It looks like a good set-up with good piece density. (I didn't study the coin-toss system yet to see what other starting positions are possible).
 
I'm not sure what you mean by beta test. Do you mean testing Apothecary by playing an on-line game? I wouldn't mind playing a variant game on-line by correspondence. Can that be done here, or only at the Game Courier section? If there is a way to play I might like to try. I just don't know if that can be done here. At chess.com we often play by showing a diagram after each move which is pretty easy to do.
But helping with beta testing is definitely possible - I just need to know what you mean.:)
 

Aurelian Florea wrote on Tue, Feb 28, 2017 04:19 AM UTC:

@vickalan

By beta testing I mean you should try the game on chessV, play it, whatch the computer play whatever fancies you better and offer a critic for the game.

The symmetry is the normal kind. But the fool piece violates it. I added the fool this way so it wouldn't crowed a certain area of the board!


Aurelian Florea wrote on Tue, Feb 28, 2017 04:21 AM UTC:

@ George Duke,

I'd like to apologize for my style of commenting. It's just I get over excited sometimes and start talking. I'll be more considerate in the future!


Aurelian Florea wrote on Sat, Mar 4, 2017 04:12 PM UTC:

Let us reiterate the Apothecary1 pieces. There are five categories of strength:

Major Pieces:

Queen:Classic chess queen

Griffin:Moves one square diagonally and the towards outside rides orthogonally as a rook

Aanca:Moves one square orthogonally and the towards outside rides diagonally as a bishop

Rook piece:

Rook: Classic Chess Rook

Fool Piece:

Fool: Imitates the last move of the opponent

Minor Pieces:

Knight:classic chess knigth that moves but not captures with a (3,2) leap

Bishop:classic chess bishop

Champion:steps one step orthogonally or leaps two steps diagonally or orthogonally

Wizard:steps one step diagonally or makes a (3,1) leap

Pawn piece:

Pawn: classic chess pawn move and capture but promotes and rank 8 to any minor at rank 9 to a minor or rook and rank 10 to any piece.


Aurelian Florea wrote on Sat, Mar 4, 2017 04:15 PM UTC:

Let us reiterate the Apothecary2 pieces. There are five categories of strength:

Major Pieces:

Queen:Classic chess queen

Archbishop:bishop+knight

Chancellor:rook+knight

Rook piece:

Rook: Classic Chess Rook

Fool Piece:

Fool: Imitates the last move of the opponent

Minor Pieces:

Knight:classic chess knigth that moves but not captures with a (3,3) leap

Bishop:classic chess bishop

Elephant:moves and captures one or two steps diagonally or leaps just to move (3,0)

Zebra:Makes a moving or capturing (3,2) leap or step just to move 1 step diagonally

Camel:Makes a moving or capturing (3,1) leap or step just to move 1 step orthogonally

Pawn piece:

Pawn: classic chess pawn move and capture but promotes and rank 8 to any minor at rank 9 to a minor or rook and rank 10 to any piece.


Aurelian Florea wrote on Sat, Mar 4, 2017 04:43 PM UTC:

I've posted the last two comments in the interest of this one.

I have established the final rules for the outcome of the two games. In orthodox chess there are three possible outcomes win,draw and loss. In the two apothecary chess games there are five outcomes win, advantage, draw, disadvantage,loss. For tournament play a win worths 9 points an advantage worths 6 points, a draw worths 4 points an disadvantage worths 3 points and a loss worths 1 point, not participation worths 0 points. A win is obtained through checkmate, case in which the other side loses. In a stalemate the side that cannot move is considered to have ended the game at disadvantage and it's opponent in advantage. Now comes the fun part (this idea is partially taken from shogi). In case threefold repetition or by the 150 moves rule (akin to the 50 moves rule in orthodox chess but after 150 moves aka if no pawn pushes or captures have been made in the last 150 moves the effects of the rule take place) the points count take place. For the purpose of the points count major pieces worth 9 points each, rook pieces worth 6 points each, minor pieces worth 3 points each, fool worths 4 or 5 points, 5 points when the opponent of the fool owner has at least equal number of major and minor pieces (or more major pieces) 4 points otherwise,usually a pawn worths 1 point with the exception of a rank 8 pawn which worths 4 points and a rank 9 pawn which worths 7 points. If the absolute value of the points count is 3 or less the game ends in a draw, otherwise in an advantage/disadvantage. I, Aurelian Florea, believe that the advantage/disadvantage outcome would be rare but not entirely theoretical. The reason for introducing it is that I consider that if a player finished with 2 knights or and aanca or a zebra and a camel, did better that a player that has finished with just a king. Also this rule makes some threefold repetitions more undesirable. What do you guys think about these rules?


Aurelian Florea wrote on Sat, Mar 4, 2017 05:26 PM UTC:

I've edited my last comment changing the tournament points to better values in my opinion. Also how many points should a player receiving a bye in a swiss tournament should get?


V. Reinhart wrote on Sat, Mar 4, 2017 06:13 PM UTC:
I like these rules a lot, but I have some comments:
Why does the losing side get a point? This player hasn't demonstrated anything, not even able to get a draw (of any type). A player who offers to play, then resigns after one move would get a point, just wasting everyone's time.
 
Although rare, should drawing twice be equivalent to one win and one loss? If so, a draw should be 4.5 points. If playing from black, a draw should definitely be considered at least half a win (especially if the win is from white).
 
Last, I'm not sure about the 3-fold repetition. I don't think this should let the game move to the point system. If the superior side knows he/she is better, then this player should be required to keep playing to prove he has a better position. He can do this by not moving into a repeated position for the third time.
 
I believe the five tiers would then be:
9 - win
6 - advantage (stalemate - superior side, or point count 4 or more)
4.5? - draw (point count is 3 or less)
3 - disadvantage (stalemate - inferior side)
0 - loss
(only the 150 moves with no progress leads to the point system)
 
I hate to bring up so many comments, but I like your idea and just want to make sure everything is considered thoroughly, especially if any tournament is held using the system.
Good work!:)

Aurelian Florea wrote on Sat, Mar 4, 2017 07:18 PM UTC:

@Vickalan

A player should get a point for participation for making a difference from players that have not participated in previous or future rounds. A player showing up and resigning after 1 move is awkward but how often does it happen, it does not seem very rational to me.

I'm inclined to believe that white's initial advantage is smaller that in classic chess as there are more pieces and more time for black to equalize.

In my system one win and one loss worth more than one advantage and one disadvantage and that more than two draws as I want to encourage the more decisive results. This has been done before with the 3-1-0 system used sometimes in the Bilbao tournament. But I too think that 150% for 1W+1L vs 2D ((3+0)/(1+1)) is too much so I reduced it to 125% ((9+1)/(4+4)). Anyway here tournament organizers (like the Bilbao ones :)) just joking they'll never play those games) are free to use any points system they deem fair.

The matter of the threefold repetitions is very complex I think. But there are cases where you may enforce a threefold repetition with inferior material and I don't think that's very fair. I mean the superior side has worked a whole game to become superior and missed something. The inferior side still gets something from it  (3>1) but does not deserve to draw in my opinion. This rule I don't think should be up by tournament organizers.

George Duke's comment if to that you are referring vickalan was not about our quantity of comments but about the fact that our many messages got out of context, or at least that's what I think. George Duke if you see this comment please clarify if I am doing something wrong I'll abstain for the future.

Vickalan I'm glad for your interest and collaboration!


George Duke wrote on Sun, Mar 5, 2017 01:27 AM UTC:

Actually I haven't even looked at the Apothecaries properly because there's no write-up, except they have the lead record of most comments by three or four times of all 3000 CVs here. And having noticed Joker. But the Huygens there are two others with prime numbers of interest.  Since this tablet is harder to comment on, V R's attention to the other prime, Lucas, Fibonacci etc. CVs will have to be directed in future. Huygens may not be unique, and it has article now to explain that.


V. Reinhart wrote on Sun, Mar 5, 2017 05:48 PM UTC:
Hi George,
I wrote about the Huygens in a comment, but it's not an entry in the CVP "Piececlopedia". I might like to submit it later, but I already have one game waiting for review (it's called "Trappist-1" which is the Infinite Plane game using the Huygens chess piece). I've heard about the Fibonacci series but not Lucas. What is the Lucas about?

Hi Aurelian,
I agree repetitions in chess can be complicated, and often difficult to discern if it should be a draw, or if one side is better. Usually it doesn't have to occur in chess. There's always another move, and if not, then it's a stalemate.
So if there is a repetition opportunity, one player or the other can simply make a different move. Repeating is only an advantage for the side that believes he/she is weaker and wants to get a draw. The side that is strong should PROVE he is stronger by not repeating, and win the game.
So neither player should be allowed to jump to the point system and get an "advantage" by repeating a position. If one player believes he is stronger, he should be requried to keep playing to prove his advantage. But if he doesn't think his position is strong enough, then he can repeat the position, but should get no credit for this. He only gets a "draw" for essentially "Giving Up".
(Basically my theme is players must keep playing if they can, but if they give up, then they get no credit).
Let me know what your think. Either way is OK, but it's just my opinion.
Regards, :)
 
 

Aurelian Florea wrote on Wed, Apr 19, 2017 05:54 PM UTC:

Hello guys, It's been sometime since I last posted, beeing mostly sick meanwhile.

I had problems with the wizard being to dangerous in the opening of apothecary chess 1 and to some degree the camel and zebra in apothecary chess 2.

In regard to this after playing a bit of brouhaha I decided to use that concept for the apothecaries to solve the above mentioned problem. So here are the new rules :

Ten new squares are added named c0,d0,e0,f0,g0,d11,e11,f11,g11,h11 for white non- king side foul start and d0,e0,f0,g0,h0,c11,d11,e11,f11,g11 for white king side foul start. The d and h squares are designed to hold the fools. In apothecary 1 e0,f0,e11,f11 hold the champions and d0,g0,d11,g11 hold the wizards. In apothecary 2  e0,f0,e11,f11 hold the elephants d0,d11 hold the zebras and g0,g11 hold the camels. The champions and elephant receive on those squares a (4,0)and(4,1)leaper forward moves. The wizard receives forward (2,2) and (3,3) leaper moves. The zebra receive (2,2) and (3,3)  forward moves and the camel receives (2,0),(3,0)&(4,0) forward moves. As in brouhaha the special squares are temporary one the initial piece ocupying them vacates them they dissapear from the game.

I hope you can make some sense from this post.


V. Reinhart wrote on Wed, Apr 19, 2017 06:22 PM UTC:

Hi Aurelian, I'm glad you are feeling better. What was the result of the Wizard being too dangerous? Did it give White too much of an advantage, or some other consequence?


Also, what does the Wizard do. In the notes below it says "steps one step diagonally or makes a (3,1) leap." Is it the ability to attack the 1st (or 8th) rank pieces over the pawns that made it too dangerous?


Aurelian Florea wrote on Wed, Apr 19, 2017 06:46 PM UTC:

A second new  rule I though about it's called the pocket pawns rule. First at move 50 and 75 each player receives a pocket pawn. A pocket pawn must be played at the next move into a square of the owner's choice on it's 3rd rank. The third pocket pawn is subject to variable time depending on which piece have been promoted to and move time. If no pieces are promoted pocket pawns appear for each player at move 100,130,165,205,250,300,355,415,480... . Each promoted pawn decreases the time until the next pocket pawn.

In apothecary chess 1 you get an 4% time decrease (rounded up) from the current interval for promoting to a champion 16.5 % for promoting to a knight, 31.5% for promoting to a wizard and 66% for promoting to a bishop all promotions on rank 8. You get a 4% time decrease (rounded up) for the current interval for promoting to a rook on rank 9. Also you get a 4% time decrease (rounded up) for the current interval for promoting to a queen on rank 10. You receive and 100% time decrease when promoting to a griffin (basically receive and extra pawn) and and 190% time decrease when promoting to an aanca (almost receiving two pawns, this is very much possible).

In apothecary chess 2 you get an 50% time decrease (rounded up) from the current interval for promoting to a elephant, 62.5% for promoting to a bishop and 100% for promoting to a knight or a camel 112.5 for a zebra all promotions on rank 8. You get a 4% time decrease (rounded up) for the current interval for promoting to a rook on rank 9. Also you get a 4% time decrease (rounded up) for the current interval for promoting to a queen on rank 10. You receive and 100% time decrease when promoting to a Marshall (basically receive and extra pawn) and and 160% time decrease when promoting to an archbishop.

All these complications are done in order to balance promotions between different pierces. For example at rank 10 a player will always promote to a queen but this way receives a extra pawn if it promotes to a griffin/Marshall. The downside of this it's that it leads to prolonged the games.

I'm hopping you can make sense from this weird post.


Aurelian Florea wrote on Wed, Apr 19, 2017 06:51 PM UTC:

Hello vickalan and thanks!

Yes white had to much of an advantage because the wizard could easily advance and fork two stronger (or God forbid the king). Most pieces are stronger than a wizard. And yes the ability to easily attack pieces that start on the 9th rank over the pwans protection that makes the wizard/camel&zebra very dangerous!


Greg Strong wrote on Thu, Apr 20, 2017 12:48 AM UTC:

Interesting that you've adopted the Brouhaha rule for introducing extra pieces onto the board.  I'm glad you liked that - I think it is a good approach.  I like it better than the 'gateing' in of pieces in Seirawan Chess, but I am biased :)

Regarding Apothecary as a whole, my personal feeling is that you are trying to do too much.  Beyond adding extra pieces and enlarging the board, you seem to be doing all the following things (some of which are probably good, but in total it feels too much):

  1. Extra non-capturing moves for standard pieces like Knight
  2. The 50-move rule is now 150 moves
  3. Complicated promotion rule
  4. Extra pocket pawns at different times, with timing determined by complicated formula
  5. Pieces introduced from disappearing squares (Brouhaha rule)
  6. Complicated point allocation system for tournament matches
  7. Fool/Joker mimic piece
  8. Randomized setup

I would personally get rid of at least numbers 2, 4, and 6 from the above list.  Number 2 and 4 are, I think, intended to address the issue of draws.  Draws are a serious problem in orthodox chess, but I very much doubt they will be an issue here.  With the extra power on the board and tactical depth added by different (new) movement types and mimic piece, I would not expect hardly any draws.

As for #1, is there any particular reasoning behind both having the extra moves, and what the extra moves are?  It seems arbitrary.  In particular, I don't like the (3, 3) leap of the Knight in Apothecary 2.  One of the main properties of the knight is that it changes color with each move so it cannot "triangulate" - it cannot move and still continue attacking any of the same squares.  The 3, 3 leap cancels this property.

Anyway, my suggestion, for what little it is worth, is to start out a little more simply.  Remove a little complexity, publish the rules and start playing on Game Courier.  See if people are interested and get feedback from actual players.  You can always expand or modify the rules later.


Aurelian Florea wrote on Thu, Apr 20, 2017 06:00 AM UTC:

Thanks, for the complex feedback, this is why this post exists. I think you are correct about 4. In my view 2 can be anything I've extended it from 50 to 150 because of the larger board and number of pieces.

As for the non-capturing moves. The zebra just moves of the knight in apothecary1 are desingned by the inventors of advanced omega chess to increase slightly the power of the knight, as the enlarged board takes a bit of it. I like this concept. In apothecary 2 the elephant receives such a move (the threeleaper move) for two reasons speed and decolourbounding. Actually the apothecary 2 elephant I consider a better designed piece. It works quite well. The camel receives an unbouding wazir move and the zebra receiver a helper move for simetry. About the apothecary 2 knight I think it quite bad. It receives the threaper moves as a couter point to the elephant. The bad stuff is that that move is useless for the most part as is too long and also a knight can reach there in 2 moves anyway. But this rule stays. So does the brouhaha rule as this way the rooks are now connected.

The reasoning behind the promotion rule is to promote to more pieces than just the queen. That's actually the reasoning behind the pocket pawns, but know I think this is an exaggeration. I'm officially scrapping that.

6 is under scrutiny, too.

About trying hard. I am. I hope for good games, thanks for noticing.

How difficult is to setup a game courier? I never did it. But I think with my average programming skills should be fairly easy.

I aim to set up the chessV1 first and then publish as computer tests are also interesting.

Thanks once again for your kind and complete feedback, Greg!


V. Reinhart wrote on Thu, Apr 20, 2017 07:07 AM UTC:

Hi Aurelian and Greg, just to throw in my opinion, I don't think draws are a problem in chess. It's just a 3rd possible outcome.

Games can still be intense and filled with interesting and spectacular play. Here's a good example of an interesting game that ended in draw:

Magnus Carlsen (age 13) vs. Kasparov

See Kasparov shaking his head.

Greg: Btw, I've been enjoying your ChessV program. Excellent work!


Aurelian Florea wrote on Thu, Apr 20, 2017 04:51 PM UTC:

After a private discussion with Greg Strong, I decided to scrape my work with apothecary chessV1. The reason for that is that it will require a lot of work to add the Bruhaha squares, and they are here to stay as otherwise the wizard camel and zebra are too strong in the opening. As it will take quite a while until I with the help of Greg manage to implement apotheccary in chessV 2 (I currently know nothing on c#) I decided to publish the two games as they are in a few days, and then we will see what's going on.


25 comments displayed

EarliestEarlier Reverse Order LaterLatest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.